Is D&D the only game that radically changes each edition?

[Andre]

Champions 5th Edition is a supplement for HERO 5th Edition. That's a pretty big change Unless you're talking about the actual fifth published edition of Champions, which was New Champions -- a completely different (and widely panned) game powered by (yuck) Fuzion. The Champions supplement for HERO 5th is actually the sixth edition of Champions to see publication.

Fuzion Champions really wasn't a bad system, it just wasn't "Champions". The designers were very up front in declaring that their intent was to retain some elements of Champions, while "fixing" all the faults, real or perceived. They ended up with a system that was okay, but was more new than old. They didn't attract enough new players to compensate for losing most of the old guard who actually liked Champions, warts and all.

In many ways, I can't shake the feeling that 4E will be the Fuzion version of D&D. So different from what has come before that the old guard don't recognize it as D&D, yet a decent system if taken on its own merits. Given how little we know right now, only time will tell.

 

[Claudius Gaius]

I'm afraid I'm no judge. I found Clan-Mech Battletech, high-level AD&D 1'st edition, Shadowrun II, and Continium II (a very obscure system) compatible enough to let each player simply bring in their own group under their own rules for a battle scenario. It only took a couple of quick conversion notes for translating attacks and damage.

Oddly enough, the jump from AD&D to 3x is usually more awkward. 3x expends so much effort on nailing everything down that its very awkward when you try to bring in things from looser rule systems.

I would have to say that few other games make such radical changes as D&D between editions. Most other games, characters can be translated between editions with a little tweaking, rather than a total rebuild - and if I have to do a total rebuild, it's a new game, not a new edition.

 

[reutbing0]

It's all in how you define radical.

The way I look at it, each edition of allowed me to play a warrior/rogue/priest/wizard-like characters in a pseudo-medieval sword and sorcery fantasy-setting. I got to swing swords and cast spells. I explored dungeons, slayed monsters and accumulated wealth and treasure. I had great roleplaying moments in 3rd and 2nd edition and pursued epic quests. If 4th edition allows me to do that whilst rolling a d20 I wouldn't consider it a radical change. I'd agree that the mechanical changes are more than trivial, but I've always found the spirit of material from previous edition more important than the numbers. But your mileage may vary of course.

 

[DreadPirateMurphy]

Didn't they try to radically change the mechanics of Star Frontiers before they stopped publishing?

Traveller has had some pretty radical revisions, but then Traveller always struck me as more about the setting than the system -- original Traveller, D20, GURPS, etc.

 

[Glyfair]

In any event, there are also several rules differences among the games. Powers getting different point costs, package deal discounts disappearing, etc...

Indeed, but are they major rules changes? Are they as much of a changes as between 2nd and 3rd or between D&D and AD&D? Not in my opinion.

And really that should be the basis of this discussion. What is a "major" change to an RPG?

 

[Glyfair]

What drives change with D&D?

The pre/post from D&D to 1st AD&D was driven by the transition from a small game played by wargame hobbyists, to a huge audience of millions. And that stayed the same for basically 2 decades.

Indeed. Gary has said that part of the reason for AD&D was to have a more consistent game from table to table. With all the house rules used in OD&D, playing in a another person's game for a single session could be a huge challenges. At the time they felt it was slowing the creation of a strong community.

Basic D&D was originally created to serve as an introduction to new players. Give them a simpler system to start and lead them into OD&D and AD&D.

I admit, I have no idea what lead into the creation of BEMCI D&D. I imagine they felt that BD&D was lacking and wanted to improve it, especially since it was written and released before they had finished working on AD&D (it would be like releasing a BD&D4 at last year's GenCon). I don't know why they decided to change the basic, introductory game into a parallel modular game, although I have a few guesses. Anyone know?

2nd edition was released because people were moving away from D&D. There were many strong choices for alternate RPGs in the mid-80s. People saw major flaws in D&D and moved away from D&D (not always abandoning it, but often doing so). 2nd edition was an attempt to move the game forward and draw some of those players back.

3E was released when D&D was at a low point. They game had been in trouble for years for many reasons. Two of the biggest were TSR's many problems and collapse, and the continued evolution of the RPG market leading to different expectations in RPGs. The morass of the many expansions added to that morass (Skills & Powers, the Complete *). Many, many people were calling for a new edition of D&D. Many players had moved away from D&D and never considered going back. You can argue whether they changes needed to be as drastic, but I do think they needed to be somewhat drastic to drawback the lapsed players.

3.5, if you count it as a new edition, seems to have come about because WotC needed to boost the sales of the game. They wanted to fix some new things with the game, but the scale of the "fixes" and the timing seems merely to have been to stop D&D from falling off the radar.

4E seems to come at a time when many people have been moving away from D&D again (ironically, large portions of the market have moved into OGL/d20 systems based on 3E). People have been seen flaws in the system they didn't want to deal with and moved to something that fit their styles better. Sure, there is a still a sizable "D&D 3.5E (or 3E) is good enough for me", but they are getting smaller every year.

Also, 3.5 has started to hit the "morass" stage. There are a lot of great supplements out there, but they don't fit together so well because of design at different times. For example, Book of Nine Swords is generally considered great, but it does make the Fighter a far less attractive class. It does seem time to take the great ideas from the last ~5 years and move them into the game so that everything is considered in the core design.

Why such major changes? I agree with Chris Pramas that a 3.75 would have been a mistake. A lot of people felt 3.5 was a mistake. The changes were just enough to be annoying. There were enough to make older products very difficult to use with the new game, but not enough so that the game felt like a real new edition. It felt like a half-measure put together with duct tape (the ranger doesn't quite work, move this here...hold it...tape it...viola!). IMO, they needed a significant change with 4E for there to be a 4E.

I do think it was about a year too early. 2009 would have been about right on the maturity of the game for a 4E. I suspect market forces played a role in that. As much as some hate it, roleplaying companies are in business. They have to run it like a business if they want to survive.

 

[Nikosandros]

Indeed, but are they major rules changes? Are they as much of a changes as between 2nd and 3rd or between D&D and AD&D? Not in my opinion.

And really that should be the basis of this discussion. What is a "major" change to an RPG?

Well, to me they feel roughly of the same level as the changes between the two editions of AD&D or between basic D&D and AD&D.

On the other hand the changes between AD&D and 3e have been massive and such a radical change is indeed uncommon in the RPG world. However, as others have argued, all the other games have basically niche markets, while D&D tries to be as mainstream as possible (insofar as an RPG can be mainstream, of course).

 

[Glyfair]

On the other hand the changes between AD&D and 3e have been massive and such a radical change is indeed uncommon in the RPG world.

A lot of that is because a game having a longevity is pretty rare. I think of you listed all the games and worlds that have existed in RPGs since at least the mid-80s you'll see it was more common than you think.

There is another tough case where an RPG world exists and goes through different systems. I already mentioned Glorantha and the various systems tied to it. How many different systems did the Empire of the Petal Throne go through? How many of them were evolutions and how many completely new games?

Palladium is one of the few that has survived mostly unchanged. However, one of the biggest criticisms of the company is that they don't "fix" the system. They have survived, however.

 

[Nikosandros]

For the worlds I agree, but I'm not so sure about the rules systems. GURPS, HERO, Runequest, CoC and Traveler have changed less I think. (Well CoC got a d20 version, but the old game still exists).

 

[WayneLigon]

Is D&D the only game that does this? What other examples can you think of? And, here's the meat of the question: why does D&D do this?

Because you're dealing with a first generation RPG trying to become a 3-4th generation RPG.

Most games that are still around in any form are late 3rd generation games that were designed from the get-go to be more flexible in many ways than D&D was. In essence they learned from D&D's mistakes, which is something D&D itself has only recently been allowed to do. On the whole they don't need major revisions because most of them 'got it right' to begin with. D&D is still trying to shed itself of past mistakes and cruft that has gotten in the gears, slowing things down. Shedding some of these mistakes is going to result in change. Unfortunately, the revision time has been so long that it's hard to do that. Now you have the power of nostalgia working against the changes that need to take place.

Out of the box most other games are generally more advanced in rules structures, resolution systems, overall design principals, etc, so they usually only need revision to encompass eratta that has been found or adjust the way they do things as the designers discover better ways of accomplishing their goals. Many of these games also have a more limited scope than D&D does. This also helps them avoid radical rules changes and especially flavor changes.